Hi,
Am Mo., 31. Aug. 2020 um 12:55 Uhr schrieb Edward Haas <edwardh(a)redhat.com
>:
>
> Hi,
>
> This issue has been referenced by the Kernel community here.
> That ref also includes other references from several organizations.
>
> My main concern here is that we will diverge from the telco terms which
is the source
> of the current naming using the API.
> I have not managed to see work on this from IEEE or IETF (e.g. RFC/s
proposals).
> It took centuries for the current technical terms to get stabilized and
become a common language for
> engineers to communicate.
There is this draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-knodel-terminology-02.html
Not sure how much people are still working on it, seems that the
oldest version is from 2018.
Thanks. Unfortunately I see not decision made and no specific changes that
will sync all to the same naming.
> What I do not prefer to have is a unique Nmstate naming
convention which
will differ from other telco solutions.
> If we are talking about internal non-API usage, then anything may work
and is easily changeable. But when we look
> at the API level this may be a serious issue which merits a larger
design effort and not just a simple voting.
Since we are talking about only two words, I believe it is reasonable
for anyone to learn that different words are used in other contexts.
Since we are talking about preparations for nmstate 1.0.0, the
inclusive terms need to be chosen sooner than later to ensure that it
can be properly communicated and we can avoid this change after 1.0.0.
My claim here is that if we do this prematurely we lose consistency and
standardization.
If there is no standardization yet, at least some that the big players have
agreed on, we should not
enforce namings which may surprise our users.
In general, we could introduce another inclusive naming without breaking
the existing and control it through
configuration. The same can be done in the future when something is agreed
in the telco community.
The configuration just needs to control the reporting, the setting can
accept all options.
Will that provide a reasonable solution for this goal?
Thanks
Till
>
> Thanks,
> Edy.
>
> On Mon, Aug 31, 2020 at 1:33 PM Fernando Fernandez Mancera <
ferferna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hello everyone,
>>
>> I am asking for ideas and tomorrow I will open a public voting on the
>> mailing list. So, please add your suggestions now. The current ones
>> are:
>>
>> - main/sub
>> - main/member
>> - parent/child
>> - base/child
>> - main/worker
>> - trunk/leg
>> - base/leg
>>
>> Please, feel free to add other terms.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Fernando.
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 2:31 PM William Caban Babilonia
>> <william.caban(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Another idea for the naming.
>> >
>> > If we consider something like:
>> >
>> > bond0:
>> > - eth0
>> > - eth1
>> > - eth2
>> > - eth3
>> >
>> > bond0.vlan1
>> > bond0.vlan2
>> >
>> > etc,
>> >
>> > - What about calling the physical interfaces "eth0-3"
"members" of
bond0?
>> > - What about calling "vlan1" "vlan2" are a child of
bond0?
>> >
>> >
>> > _W
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 6:33 AM Till Maas <till(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> Am Do., 27. Aug. 2020 um 11:49 Uhr schrieb Fernando Fernandez Mancera
>> >> <ferferna(a)redhat.com>:
>> >>
>> >> > Looking on the thread it seems we agree on two points:
>> >> >
>> >> > * We should use a generic word for codebase and for API
VLAN/VXLAN
>> >> > will user base/parent, as we are already doing.
>> >> >
>> >> > * Short words are good so controller/subordinate is too long and
>> >> > interface/subinterface are too generic.
>> >>
>> >> my proposal should have been top and sub as the identifiers but I it
>> >> would be spoken as top interface / sub interface.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > IMO, we should follow the kernel terms and we shouldn't create
new
>> >> > terms because it would be hard to understand for maintainers.
>> >> >
https://www.zdnet.com/article/linux-team-approves-new-terminology-bans-te...
>> >> >
>> >> > I propose to use:
>> >> >
>> >> > "base/worker" or "main/worker".
>> >>
>> >> This would also lead to base interface and worker interface.
>> >>
>> >> base and worker are not mentioned in the zdnet article. So how about
>> >> "main" and "sub" (short for subordinate).
>> >>
>> >> Can we maybe check at least with someone else involved in the
upstream
>> >> kernel to get their opinion if Jarod is not available?
>> >>
>> >> Thanks
>> >> Till
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > If there is no complaint on this I will work on this by next
week,
so
>> >> > please, share your thoughts. :-)
>> >> >
>> >> > Thanks!
>> >> > Fernando.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM Fernando Fernandez Mancera
>> >> > <ferferna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Sorry, I meant "base/leg".
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:59 AM Fernando Fernandez Mancera
>> >> > > <ferferna(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 10:35 AM Till Maas
<till(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Hi,
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Am Mo., 24. Aug. 2020 um 10:14 Uhr schrieb
Fernando
Fernandez Mancera
>> >> > > > > <ferferna(a)redhat.com>:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > On Mon, Aug 24, 2020 at 9:58 AM Till Maas
<till(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Hi,
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Am Do., 13. Aug. 2020 um 17:06 Uhr
schrieb Gris Ge <
fge(a)redhat.com>:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Hi,
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > I would like to suggest we deprecate
our use of
`master/slave` in
>> >> > > > > > > > nmstate project.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > And switching to these terminologies
for interface
relationship in
>> >> > > > > > > > the coming new release of
nmstate-0.4.0:
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > * For bond/team/bridge:
>> >> > > > > > > > * controller/subordinate
>> >> > > > > > > > # For bridge, we can also use
controller/port.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > having shorter words would be nice,
maybe
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > trunk/leg
>> >> > > > > > > base/leg
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > base/dell
>> >> > > > > > > mesa/dell
>> >> > > > > > > base/vale
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > bulk/part
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > * For VLAN/VxLAN:
>> >> > > > > > > > * parent/child
>> >> > > > > > > > * base/child
>> >> > > > > > > > # Current API using
`base-iface`, no need to
change
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Some other suggestions:
>> >> > > > > > > base/apex
>> >> > > > > > > mesa/apex
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > base/head
>> >> > > > > > > trunk/head
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Those are a little bit confusing for me. I
expect both
"base" and
>> >> > > > > > "head" would replace
"master".
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Interesting. This might be because I did not think
about the
old
>> >> > > > > analogy where one interface has power over the
other but
more like how
>> >> > > > > they are arranged.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Bond interfaces are built on top of other
interfaces, making
the other
>> >> > > > > interfaces something at the bottom (like legs) and
the bond
interface
>> >> > > > > the trunk or base. Since VLAN interfaces are also
built on
top of
>> >> > > > > other interfaces, even on bond interfaces, this
makes them
another top
>> >> > > > > layer which is the head. But since there could be
multiple
VLAns, arms
>> >> > > > > might make more sense and then both arms and legs
are limbs.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > > I've been thinking on this and it would be
good to use
only one option
>> >> > > > > > for codebase, i.e using the same terms for all
kind of
interfaces. For
>> >> > > > > > the exposed API, I would not change VLAN/VXLAN
as we are
already using
>> >> > > > > > base/child terms. For other interfaces I
noticed that we
are mixing up
>> >> > > > > > "slaves" and "ports", I
suggest to unify it into a generic
one. IMO,
>> >> > > > > > the most generic are
"controller/subordinate".
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > If we agree on the generic word, I would use
them for the
whole codebase.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > What do you think? Thanks!
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > I am not sure if the power structure is the best
analogy,
here. Does a
>> >> > > > > bond/bridge interface really control its
subordinate
interfaces? Maybe
>> >> > > > > it also does not matter that much, given that at
some point
the words
>> >> > > > > will be defined by usage. However, using long words
might
not stick
>> >> > > > > since people are lazy. A shorter alternative might
be top
>> >> > > > > interface/sub interface.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Yes, that is true. It would be nice to use a shorter
word..
maybe
>> >> > > > "parent/child"? As parents have power over
their childs.. Not
sure.
>> >> > > > About interface/subinterface, I find them very lazy,
"interface" term
>> >> > > > is all over the codebase so it could be very confusing
for us,
IMO.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > I also like "base/lag"-
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > Thanks!
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > > Thanks
>> >> > > > > Till
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > The trunk interface of eth1 is bond0
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of the bridge br0
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of an base interface
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a dell interface of br0 (probably
not so nice
because of the
>> >> > > > > > > confusion with the manufacturer)
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a vale interface of br0
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a limb of br0
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a leg of br0
>> >> > > > > > > br0 is the trunk for eth1
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is a part interface of the br0 bulk
interface
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > the base of VLAN eth1.100 is eth1
>> >> > > > > > > eth1.100 is an apex interface of eth1
>> >> > > > > > > eth1.100 is a head of eth1
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is the trunk interface for
eth1.100.
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is the base interface for eth1.100.
>> >> > > > > > > eth1 is the trunk for eth1.100
>> >> > > > > > > eth1.100 is a limb of eth1
>> >> > > > > > > eth1.100 is an arm of eth1
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > These seem to be my current favorites:
>> >> > > > > > > leg/trunk/head
>> >> > > > > > > limb/trunk/limb
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Limb could be used both for the
interfaces included in a
bridge or a
>> >> > > > > > > bond. Not sure, if they need to have
different
identifiers.
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > For example:
>> >> > > > > > > > * The `controller` of eth1 is bond0
and
`controller_type` is bond
>> >> > > > > > > > * The br0 is `controller` of eth1
>> >> > > > > > > > * The eth1 is `port` of bridge br0
or `subordinate`
of bridge br0
>> >> > > > > > > > * The eth1 is `subordinate` of
bond0
>> >> > > > > > > > * The VLAN eth1.100 is child of
eth1
>> >> > > > > > > > * The base interface of eth1.100 is
eth1
>> >> > > > > > > > * The parent of VLAN eth1.100 is
eth1
>> >> > > > > > > > * The VLAN eth1.100 is child of
eth1
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > I am not English native speaker,
please kindly help on
this if you have
>> >> > > > > > > > better ideas.
>> >> > > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > > Thank you very much!
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Thank you for moving this forward!
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Till
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > --
>> >> > > > > > > Till Maas
>> >> > > > > > > He/His/Him
>> >> > > > > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
>> >> > > > > > > NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL
Networking System
Role
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/,
Registered
seat: Grasbrunn,
>> >> > > > > > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht
Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>> >> > > > > > > Managing Directors: Charles Cachera,
Laurie Krebs,
Michael O'Neill,
>> >> > > > > > > Thomas Savage
>> >> > > > > > >
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > --
>> >> > > > > Till Maas
>> >> > > > > He/His/Him
>> >> > > > > Associate Manager, Software Engineering
>> >> > > > > NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking
System Role
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered
seat:
Grasbrunn,
>> >> > > > > Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB
153243,
>> >> > > > > Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Laurie Krebs,
Michael
O'Neill,
>> >> > > > > Thomas Savage
>> >> > > > >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> Till Maas
>> >> He/His/Him
>> >> Associate Manager, Software Engineering
>> >> NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking System Role
>> >>
>> >> Red Hat GmbH,
http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
>> >> Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
>> >> Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Laurie Krebs, Michael
O'Neill,
>> >> Thomas Savage
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> nmstate-devel mailing list -- nmstate-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> >> To unsubscribe send an email to
nmstate-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> >> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>> >> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> >> List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/nmstate-devel@lists.fedoraho...
>> _______________________________________________
>> nmstate-devel mailing list -- nmstate-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> To unsubscribe send an email to
nmstate-devel-leave(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
>> Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
>> List Guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>> List Archives:
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/archives/list/nmstate-devel@lists.fedoraho...
--
Till Maas
He/His/Him
Associate Manager, Software Engineering
NetworkManager, Nmstate, Ansible RHEL Networking System Role
Red Hat GmbH,
https://de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Brian Klemm, Laurie Krebs, Michael
O'Neill